Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, 325:231 | Cite as

Soil resource heterogeneity in the form of aggregated litter alters maize productivity

  • Terrance D. Loecke
  • G. Philip Robertson
Regular Article

Abstract

Soils are spatially heterogeneous. To better understand the effects of sub-plant scale soil resource heterogeneity on primary productivity we aggregated plant litter (Trifolium pratense L. shoots and Secale cereale L. leaves) into 8, 24, 32, and 72 patches and uniformly distributed in 50-L containers (0.15 m2) of soil and grew Zea mays L. throughout two seasons. On average aggregated T. pratense litter enhanced final aboveground maize biomass by 14% relative to uniformly distributed T. pratense litter. This effect may be related to the reduction in root carbon allocation observed as lower apparent root respiration rates compared to uniform litter distribution. In contrast, the spatial distribution of S. cereale litter did not affect productivity. The common experimental approach of uniformly distributing resources to understand their influence on soil-plant processes likely oversimplifies field conditions because our results indicate that the spatial distribution of plant litter alone can influence productivity and plant carbon allocation.

Keywords

Spatial heterogeneity Root foraging Nitrogen mineralization Root respiration Soil surface CO2 flux Corn 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are thankful for field and laboratory assistance from G. Parker, J. Simmons, S. Parr, A. Corbin, J. Rensch, B. Rensch, S. Seehaver, M. Gorentz, C. Smart, S. Bohm, S. Vanderwulp, W. Mahaney, T. Robinson, K. Smemo, A. Burgin, M. B. Demming, A. Grandy, and C. McSwiney. For comments on this manuscript we thank, K. Gross, M. Klug, S. Snapp, and two anonymous reviewers. Support for the research was provide by NSF (LTER and DDIG programs), USDA-CSREES (Sustainable Agriculture), and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.

Reference

  1. Aikio S, Ruotsalainen AL (2002) The modelled growth of mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal plants under constant versus variable soil nutrient concentration. Mycorrhiza 12:257–261. doi: 10.1007/s00572-002-0178-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Akaike H (1974) New look at statistical-model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 19:716–723. doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amos B, Walters DT (2006) Maize root biomass and net rhizodeposited carbon: an analysis of the literature. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1489–1503. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2005.0216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonkowski M, Griffiths B, Scrimgeour C (2000) Substrate heterogeneity and microfauna in soil organic ‘hotspots’ as determinants of nitrogen capture and growth of ryegrass. Appl Soil Ecol 14:37–53. doi: 10.1016/S0929-1393(99) 00047-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breland TA (1994) Enhanced mineralization and denitrification as a result of heterogeneous distribution of clover residues in soil. Plant Soil 166:1–12. doi: 10.1007/BF02185475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheng WX, Johnson DW, Fu SL (2003) Rhizosphere effects on decomposition: controls of plant species, phenology, and fertilization. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67:1418–1427Google Scholar
  7. Crum JR, Collins HP (1995) KBS Soils. Available via http://lter.kbs.msu.edu/about/site_description/soils.php Accessed 24 Nov 2008
  8. Ding W, Cai Y, Cai Z, Yagi K, Zheng X (2007) Soil respiration under maize crops: effects of water, temperature, and nitrogen fertilization. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:944–951Google Scholar
  9. Drew MC (1975) Comparison of effects of a localized supply of phosphate, nitrate, ammonium and potassium on growth of seminal root system, and shoot, in barley. New Phytol 75:479–490. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1975.tb01409.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fitter A, Hodge A, Robinson D (2000) Plant response to patchy soils. In: Stewart AJA, John EA, Hutchings MJ (eds) The ecological consequences of environmental heterogeneity. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, U.K., pp 71–90Google Scholar
  11. Franklin RB, Mills AL (2003) Multi-scale variation in spatial heterogeneity for microbial community structure in an eastern Virginia agricultural field. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 44:335–346. doi: 10.1016/S0168-6496(03) 00074-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Granato TC, Raper CD (1989) Proliferation of maize (Zea mays L.) roots in response to localized supply of nitrate. J Exp Bot 40:263–275. doi: 10.1093/jxb/40.2.263 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Granato TC, Raper CD, Wilkerson GG (1989) Respiration rate in maize roots Is related to concentration of reduced nitrogen and proliferation of lateral roots. Physiol Plant 76:419–424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Han GX, Zhou GS, Xu ZZ, Yang Y, Liu JL, Shi KQ (2007) Biotic and abiotic factors controlling the spatial and temporal variation of soil respiration in an agricultural ecosystem. Soil Biol Biochem 39:418–425. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanson PJ, Edwards NT, Garten CT, Andrews JA (2000) Separating root and soil microbial contributions to soil respiration: a review of methods and observations. Biogeochem 48:115–146. doi: 10.1023/A:1006244819642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanway JJ (1963) Growth stages of corn (Zea mays L.). Agron J 55:487–492Google Scholar
  17. Hewitt EJ (1966) Sand and water culture methods used in the study of plant nutrition. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, p 547Google Scholar
  18. Hodge A (2001) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi influence decomposition of, but not plant nutrient capture from, glycine patches in soil. New Phytol 151:725–734. doi: 10.1046/j.0028-646x.2001.00200.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hodge A (2006) Plastic plants and patchy soils. J Exp Bot 57:401–411. doi: 10.1093/jxb/eri280 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hodge A, Robinson D, Griffiths BS, Fitter AH (1999) Why plants bother: root proliferation results in increased nitrogen capture from an organic patch when two grasses compete. Plant Cell Environ 22:811–820. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3040.1999.00454.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holland EA, Robertson GP, Greenberg J, Groffman PM, Boone RD, Gosz JR (1999) Soil CO2, N2O, and CH4 exchange. In: Robertson GP, Coleman DC, Bledsoe CS, Sollins P (eds) Standard soil methods for long-term ecological research. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY, pp 185–201Google Scholar
  22. Hughes JK, Hodge A, Fitter AH, Atkin OK (2008) Mycorrhizal respiration: implications for global scaling relationships. Trends Plant Sci 13:583–588. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2008.08.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hutchings MJ, John EA (2004) The effects of environmental heterogeneity on root growth and root/shoot partitioning. Ann Bot (Lond) 94:1–8. doi: 10.1093/aob/mch111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kume T, Sekiya N, Yano K (2006) Heterogeneity in spatial P-distribution and foraging capability by Zea mays: Effects of patch size and barriers to restrict root proliferation within a patch. Ann Bot (Lond) 98:1271–1277. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcl216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuzyakov Y (2002) Review: factors affecting rhizosphere priming effects. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 165:382–396. doi: 10.1002/1522-2624(200208) 165:4<382::AID-JPLN382>3.0.CO;2-# CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2005) SAS for Mixed Models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Loecke TD, Robertson GP (2009) Soil resource heterogeneity in terms of litter aggregation promotes nitrous oxide production and slows decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem 41:228–235. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.10.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robertson GP, Gross KL (1994) Assessing the heterogeneity of belowground resources: quantifying pattern and scale. In: Caldwell MM, Pearcy RW (eds) Plant exploitation of environmental heterogeneity. Academic Press Inc., New York, NY, pp 237–253Google Scholar
  29. Robinson D (1994) The responses of plants to non-uniform supplies of nutrients. New Phytol 127:635–674. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1994.tb02969.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robinson D (1996) Resource capture by localized root proliferation: why do plants bother? Ann Bot (Lond) 77:179–186. doi: 10.1006/anbo.1996.0020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tischner R (2000) Nitrate uptake and reduction in higher and lower plants. Plant Cell Environ 23:1005–1024. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3040.2000.00595.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang JG, Bakken LR (1997) Competition for nitrogen during decomposition of plant residues in soil: effect of spatial placement of N-rich and N-poor plant residues. Soil Biol Biochem 29:153–162. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(96) 00291-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weligama C, Tang C, Sale PWG, Conyers MK, Liu DL (2008) Localised nitrate and phosphate application enhances root proliferation by wheat and maximises rhizosphere alkalisation in acid subsoil. Plant Soil 312:101–115. doi: 10.1007/s11104-008-9581-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang HM, Rong HL, Pillbeam D (2007) Signaling mechanisms underlying the morphological responses of the root system to nitrogen in Arabidopsis thaliana. J Exp Bot 58:2329–2338. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erm114 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhu JM, Kaeppler SM, Lynch JP (2005) Topsoil foraging and phosphorus acquisition efficiency in maize (Zea mays). Funct Plant Biol 32:749–762. doi: 10.1071/FP05005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kellogg Biological Station and the Department of Crop and Soil SciencesMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Cary Institute of Ecosystem StudiesMillbrookUSA

Personalised recommendations